July 14, 2012

"But don’t forget nothing is really free. It has to paid for by people in the private sector creating goods and services, and if people want jobs more than they want free stuff from government, then they are going to have to get government to be smaller. And if they don’t want to repeal Obamacare they are going to have to give me some other stuff they are thinking about cutting, but my list takes Obamacare off first and I have a lot of other things I am thinking of cutting."

Wow. If you live long enough, you’ll see some truly gross things in politics, but Mitt Romney’s work this past week "courting black support" was enough to turn even the strongest stomach.

Romney really showed us something in his luridly self-congratulating N.A.A.C.P. gambit, followed by the awesomely disgusting "free stuff" post-mortem speech he delivered the next night in front of friendlier audiences. The twin appearances revealed the candidate to be not merely unlikable, and not merely a fatuous, unoriginal hack of a politician, but also a genuinely repugnant human being, a grasping corporate hypocrite with so little feel for how to get along with people that he has to dream up elaborate schemes just to try to pander to the mob.

Taibbi takes the quote out of context, ending with the line in the title, and omitting the important "But don’t forget nothing is really free" and the rest of Romney's simple exposition of economic truth.

So... something's disgusting. There are some truly gross things in politics. I agree about that.

So, we now have Obama unilaterally, and maybe even illegally, waiving the work requirement for welfare that was enacted as Welfare Reform under Bill Clinton. We had food stamps advertising on Spanish language TV up until recently for illegals. Etc.

Of course Obama is bribing anyone he can. He is desperate, and realizes that the only way to get reelected is to convince more people that they are going to get free stuff from the government (and the 1%/billionaires, etc.)

Sadly, this is what passes for intelligent & critical thought among our movers & shakers class. Some clown actually publishes drivel like this, and expects his readership to lap it up. Trust me, I overhear these kinds of conversations all the time in the DC area.

It's like the Socratic method has been replaced by "doin' the dozens".

What's disgusting about courting black support? Bush got dinged because he wasn't that friendly to the NAACP. Romney goes into the lions den, is completely gracious, and that's DISGUSTING. Fuck Taibbi.

And for all his anti-capitalist, rich people are evil patter...it is worth noting that Matt Taibbi is a product of private prep schools and a high-priced college "Bard".

And as an aside, Stephanie Cutter is from a wealthy family, a Smith-Vassar girl, a product of Georgetown Law. Where she no doubt smarted that she was an oppressed minority because she had to pay for birth control, like poor Sandra Fluke (who is also from a very wealthy family ou in California...Daddy is a Pelosi and Obama money bundler).Cuttert started out as a Dukakis girl volunteer and as a Teddy Kennedy flack. Had some real problems when she got out of control as deputy press secretary on the Kerry campaign. Described regular and angry that Kerry's media people bungled so much in press affairs - as a "controlling Diva", "aloof, entitled, abrasive, and truculent"....and "there is a short word that adequately summarizes my colleagues description of a female that is aloof, entitled, abrasive, and truculent".

Neutrality is an amazingly rare thing, and often it's just a bias itself with a different center of gravity. I rarely see a pure version, and certainly nobody would say I'm neutral. I'm fine with my bias toward individual liberty, and small government.

I can accept that people on the other side have their bias too for whatever reason it developed in them, and I even understand their reasons. I simply think they are wrong, mistaken, not seeing the big picture, or missing some helpful perspective.

I'm fine with all sides doing some ridicule, or hard argument on the facts, but this gross name calling and assigning evil motives and caricatures to people who are clearly decent should be called out and those who do it ignored in the future. They are bad for all sides, and they even taint the side they are on. We can't find the best solutions with these idiots screaming their horror story fantasies and drowning out the discussion.

The problem with free stuff is we love it. If a government truck pulls up on your street with a big sign that says "Free Iphones - your taxes will be raised to pay for them, but here and now they are free."Most people will get in that line... and then vote for the truck to return weekly.

(b) Even if Obama wins Taibbi's type of insanity isn't helping. Maybe 15% of voters can even tolerate his kind of nonsense, and every one of that 15% will vote Obama under absolutely every single cirumstance you can think up.

The twin appearances revealed the candidate to be not merely unlikable, and not merely a fatuous, unoriginal hack of a politician, but also a genuinely repugnant human being, a grasping corporate hypocrite with so little feel for how to get along with people that he has to dream up elaborate schemes just to try to pander to the mob.

--------------OMFG, that is a lot of hyperbole from a Journolist. What I see when I see Romney is a caring and feeling and compassionate (oh that word!) grandpa who is true to himself and comes out as plain and honest. Did Taibi have a sexual moment with Obama as he wrote (whorote) this?

"Romney really showed us something in his luridly self-congratulating N.A.A.C.P. gambit, followed by the awesomely disgusting "free stuff" post-mortem speech he delivered the next night in front of friendlier audiences. The twin appearances revealed the candidate to be not merely unlikable, and not merely a fatuous, unoriginal hack of a politician, but also a genuinely repugnant human being, a grasping corporate hypocrite with so little feel for how to get along with people that he has to dream up elaborate schemes just to try to pander to the mob."

If you are not supporting Romney for President - no matter your agreement or disagreement with any of his stands - you are supporting Barack Obama for re-election.

To be undecided is to be decided. It's now at that point. If you have the ability to vote for Romney and you choose to not do so - you are supporting the reelection of Barack Obama.

If you are a citizen of this nation and you want the right to complain about it and are concerned about it remaining the beacon of liberty and freedom, then get off your ass and support Mitt Romney. The choice is the clearest in my 40 years of voting in Presidential elections. The current occupant is the hands down worst, most incompetent executive and I can match any concern and beat any other list. At least Carter's damage was limited. The Obama/Holder disregard for the Constitutional Separation of Powers must come to an end.

I used to read Rolling Stone- when I was a 17 year old freshman in college. This would have been before Apple, Microsoft- you know- before time began. Which is why I'm so surprised that Rolling Stone is still around. Who knew?

But, even then, as as 17 year old liberal freshman, I knew better than to take up that magazine as a source for my political news.

Ann Althouse: reading Rolling Stone and the New York Times so people like me don't have to.

Thanks Ann!

On a serious note, I do try to read that stuff, but I have a hard time finishing when I get to lines like "Romney's work courting black support was enough to turn even the strongest stomach." Really? As Nancy Pelosi would say "Are you serious? Are you serious?" Taibbi is clearly unserious.

The question is, which commenter is trying to curry favor with David Axelrod?

There's lots of true believers in the Democrat-Perpetual-Wealth-Without-Working-or-Capitalist-Machine; so many, Axelrod can outsource the job for an unpaid, half-second appearance in the next Will-i-am Obama-felch-a-video, coming to Youtube soon!

Assuming nuclear war does not breakout, this divide between the fillers and the drainers of the public trough is the defining electoral issue now and for the rest of our lives. I think it's great whenever conservative politicians are willing to step right up to that chasm and point it out. We can't avoid it any longer, so let's get into it, and fight it out. Our worse enemy right now is time.

The Right has loads of thoughtful, intelligent, honest writers/columnists, and the Left has, well...Matt Taibbi.

I'm sure there are probably others, I just don't know who any of them are, nor do I care all that much to find them out - of the ones I don't know by name, there are at least 10 of their anonymous brethren working within the MSM, anyway.

And, of course, the Taibbis' approach is going to be that Mitt is just another rich, obtuse, greedy white male who cares for nothing more than his money and the power to lord himself over everyone (i.e. the typical Republican).

I didn't hear any of that in the Mittster's NAACP speech at all - I heard a guy who cares about his country. But then I'm probably obtuse, as well.

Romney would do well to banish the term "private sector" from his vocabulary. The so-called private sector, meaning business and commerce, is really just a conduit. It's people who pay for all the free stuff, rich and poor, black and white. They pay in taxes, that paying services, they pay in increased costs of modern human essentials like food, transportation, communication and education.

You think the poor are not paying? Check out the lottery line at places like my neighborhood convenience store in S.C. Or sales taxes. Or gasoline.

Of course the greatest tax the poor pay is the education tax. It's the lifetime fee extracted from them because of the shitty education so many of them get. They get a shitty education because very few on the left, and still not enough in the middle or on the right, are willing to chisel off the crust of selfish unions, entrenched bureaucrats, excuse making educators and shiftless politicians who have allowed this scandal to fester for my entire lifetime.

Black people know this. They know that many of their kids are not getting good enough education, and they know the reason. They just don't know the solution, which puts them in good company.

Mitt should have been talking education to the NAACP. He should have ripped the educational establishment several new ones.

"The current occupant is the hands down worst, most incompetent executive and I can match any concern and beat any other list. At least Carter's damage was limited. "

Actually, the damage Carter, and the Watergate Congress of 1974, did is still with us. When houses got to ridiculous prices seven years ago, it was because they were the only shelter against inflation when Carter was in office. People got to rely on their houses to protect wealth.

When you pay $30,000 for a car, you are still getting screwed by Carter and his Sec Transportation. The out-of-control EPA really got going under Carter. Sure Nixon started it but Carter got all worked up about "The moral equivalent of war," and sent gas prices through the roof. Then he rationed gas and we had long gas lines. I remember it well.

I agree Obama is worse and I am content that I won't be around to feel the pain he leaves behind. Even one term will be bad; two would kill off the USA.

One indicator of how bad it is under Obama is that even when he is borrowing trillion to "prime the pump" for economic recovery -

The US ranked 159th in GNP growth, globally, in 2011.

Time to mention other things besides "jobs!" - because jobs rest on America doing things ultimately that create jobs - GROW THE FUCKING ECONOMY, DO SOMETHING TO GET THE TRADE DEFICIT UNDER CONTROL...EVEN TARIFFS!

The truth is not that the economy is flourishing and jobs are not being created because rich people aren't paying the taxes Obama could spend on more government to "prime the pump".That is not working even with borrowed trillions. The liberal and progressive Jewish "Narrative" is wrong.

The truth is that companies are accumulating cash because they see a stagnant GNP and with other factors like regulatory uncertaintly and Obamacare - are waiting to get back into investments that create new jobs.

Curiously, or not so curiously given the Obamites are at core "socialism for you, and thee, but not me or my buddies on Wall Street, the Hamptons, or Hollywood or Georgetown DC.." - we actually do lead the world in one economic category...growth and development of new gas and oil wealth. With that the one sector that has for two years shown huge jobs growth, better salaries..revitalized communities. Naturally, the Obamites have responded by seeking to shut it down, shovel tons of new regulations in, or slow down projects until "more government sponsored studies in academia are done."

I think Taibbi is most pissed that this appearance didn't produce the epic gaffes that Dems were hoping for. Instead, the worst-case scenario happened: it went okay, and Mitt even had some applause lines. While not likely winning new black voters, he went into their house and gained their respect.

What could have Romney done to make the likes of Taibbi happy? Short of killing himself, or becoming a gay liberal Democrat, nothing. If Romney doesn't speak to the NAACP, he's a racist. Since he did, he 'turned (Taibbi's) stomach.' Taibbi wants it both ways.

JakeSaying that a speech is the same is saying that his message is the same and it is. This is what you call a casual lie? You mean like the ones falling from Obama's lips every day? Like when he says a tax cut is the same thing as government spending? They're only called lies if a Republican tells them. If Obama tells them they are instantly transsubstantiated into gospel.

wyo sis said... JakeSaying that a speech is the same is saying that his message is the same and it is. This is what you call a casual lie? You mean like the ones falling from Obama's lips every day? Like when he says a tax cut is the same thing as government spending? They're only called lies if a Republican tells them. If Obama tells them they are instantly transsubstantiated into gospel

Mitt Romney just can't seem to stop lying. He told his audience in Montana ...This kind of casual lie is typical of Romney. It says something about his character.---

Well, every politician varies the speech for variety or to include issues that a particular audience might emphasize. I believe I have heard President-Pander does that to a pathological, polis destroying extreme.

Romney did not shy from addressing his key goals - ending the NAACP's favorite son's only achievement 'Obamacare', knowing that he would be booed. Its a key part of his campaign and he certainly expounds on it to white audiences. That's what Romney was conveying when he said he was giving the same speech.

----David saidMitt should have been talking education to the NAACP. He should have ripped the educational establishment several new ones.

But he didn't. ---

Its understandable you would say this if you only followed mainstream accounts of his speech. Here's what Romney said in the NAACP audience...

*****If equal opportunity in America were an accomplished fact, black families could send their sons and daughters to public schools that truly offer the hope of a better life. Instead, for generations, the African-American community has been waiting and waiting for that promise to be kept. Today, black children are 17 percent of students nationwide – but they are 42 percent of the students in our worst-performing schools.

Our society sends them into mediocre schools and expects them to perform with excellence, and that is not fair. Frederick Douglass observed that, “It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men.” Yet, instead of preparing these children for life, too many schools set them up for failure. Everyone in this room knows that we owe them better than that.

The path of inequality often leads to lost opportunity. College, graduate school, and first jobs should be milestones marking the passage from childhood to adulthood. But for too many disadvantaged young people, these goals seem unattainable – and their lives take a tragic turn.****

That sounds like a good capture of the inner city black experience in education.

Hope this is a good illustration of the need to pay more attention to non-mainstream sources.

Black people know this. They know that many of their kids are not getting good enough education, and they know the reason. They just don't know the solution, which puts them in good company.

David, when I was younger I would have agreed with this, but now, after 30 years of seeing DC politics close up, I must posit a much more cynical explanation.

The black community knows all too well that awful schools screw over their children, but those same awful schools are a huge local source of patronage & family connection jobs for folks that the community knows would be unemployable otherwise (i.e. workfare). I'm not just talking teachers, but secretaries, janitors, administrators, various contract positions, etc. To "rationalize" the school system means getting rid of a lot of these people, and that means the black community loses those jobs.

It's a question of short-term good vs long term good. The black community, like most everyone else given the same choice, choose the short term good.

Althouse wrote: So... something's disgusting. There are some truly gross things in politics. I agree about that.

Brava!

De disgustibus non est disputandum

The political tastes of Rolling Stone writers and editors have never been disputed. They are wholly predictable. His closing line, "Man, is he a disaster. It’s really incredible theater, watching the Republicans talk themselves into this guy" could have been penned by any number of Romney's detractors, some of whom are reading this.

Assuming nuclear war does not breakout, this divide between the fillers and the drainers of the public trough is the defining electoral issue now and for the rest of our lives.

I think this is fundamentally correct (and I think it transcends the whole class-warfare meme: for example, it's possible to be a filler at both high and relatively low income levels, and it's possible to be a drainer at relatively low and high income levels).

"The black community knows all too well that awful schools screw over their children, but those same awful schools are a huge local source of patronage & family connection jobs for folks that the community knows would be unemployable otherwise (i.e. workfare)."

This is an excellent point although the tremendous support for vouchers from black parents does tend to diminish the power of it. I think they want the jobs but most black parents (mothers) know their kids are screwed by the education blob.

Romney is positioning himself as a traditional American President who relies on the hard work of his ctizens and a military without equal FOR DEFENSE only.

The free stuff crowd likes to pretend that the freebies they demand are being taken from the rich folks surpluss.

But deep down they know that is totally false. The rich have only about 2% of what the Freebie demanders say they are entitled to.

That leafes old fashioned conquest looting and enslaveing other people as the only way the math works out for the freebie demanders.

But we shy Americans don't want to conquer, loot and enslave others, so the UN and European Roman Empire guys will just take our place and through us they will do it ( to the Americans too) under an Evironmental Cover Hoax and a UN currency and a World Government. That's how Soros, Obama, and Pelosi roll.

Althouse is no better than Matt T from Rolling Stone here....out of context-wise. Mitt told told his base, the white folks he was addressing the following night about his previous nights' speech at the NAACP: thats when he said the bit about "free stuff". Letting the white folks know that he knew African American wanted more free stuff, and that is disgusting. Glad to see she's still got yall goin!

"The black community knows all too well that awful schools screw over their children."

The problem is not just the schools and the black community well knows this and hates talking about why it is that Asian and Caribbean immigrants that go to the same "bad schools" emerge far better-educated and with big numbers moving on to college, nice careers.

The black community hates talking about those other factors that cause a wake of failure, decay, and violence that not only affects blacks, but members of "other communities" hurt by black community dysfunctions.

=============That was Taibbi that reported that over half of the culprits in the fiscal meltdown were jewish financiers. Not me.It was a gaffe on Matt Taibbi's part..And you know the present definition of a gaffe, don't you??

In autoshop talk, the master cylinder controls the slave cylinders which in turn apply friction to the wheels which bring things to a halt. The fluid connecting the master and slave cylinders is dyed red in color and needs to be bled once in a while.

"... Instead, for generations, the African-American community has been waiting and waiting for that promise to be kept. ..."

There is something wrong expressed in this sentence. I can't find the words for just what it is, but it is there.

Perhaps starting with supposition that there is such a thing as an "African-American community" - a homogenous group of people that operates like an "entity" and can be maneuvered as a block. And I do not like this about "they have been waiting for the promise to be fulfilled." If they constituted a "community" why didn't they start their own schools and run them? What is this about waiting around for some other "entity" to "fulfill the promise"? Who is this other "entity"? The - er - "white community"? Who is that?

Taibbi moved to RS from a sports magazine in Moscow, and was instantly famous for the 'vampire squid' line in his first feature.

Reading it, right away the lurid detail on private sector pirates is standing on one leg needing some nod toward balance via at least a perfunct reporter-basic 5W's on the thinking re how it had been possible for a Dunbar number of major financial crime teams to appear simultaneously in just the only combination of corporate treetops that could spring out of the blue such a vast and perfectly-sequenced scam.

But no. In fact, there's so little of DC in Taibbi-land, and so little of the west's enabling 1990's financial legislation political coup d'etat --anywhere in his entire body of work --that does not seem to exist mainly in order to interdict youth support for the free market in this war against the free market, that Taibbi is like an Athena springing fully-armed from the forehead of Zeus, only Zeus is Vladimir Putin, and what Zeus is mulling is how to roll up this demographic or that.

But that can't be true --otherwise Taibbi would've moved from Moscow to Boston, where all the cagey bee freelancers live. Oh, he does live in Boston, you say? Well, fancy that!

“If they want more stuff from government tell them to go vote for the other guy – more free stuff.

Here in Akron, an elderly restaurant owner died a few hours after Obama visited her restaurant. Within days, con artists were telling people Obama felt so bad, he would pay up to $1,0000 of their bills if they just gave them credit card/bank account information.

I read RS as I have for decades. Matt T is their star writer and a pretty good one. He gets economics totally wrong but he writes well about a topic he doesnt quite understand. Charming in a way. In this article he is overwrought but then he is the top cool writer for RS and he has to keep the old vibe going. Somehow. He will get worse in time as he comes to admire his posing more and more. His writing will fall apart like a dollar watch because while his heart is in the rght place the policies he claims to admire are sinking the uderclass. At some point he wil come to see this and regret he sold his brain and talent for hipness.

It's a rock outfit. There is rock music playing in the background She's Come Undone, at 11, and the writer's trembling fingers agitatedly put the finishing touch on the music and coffee-influenced free-from writing and in that very next moment of oddly expanded time and with the song still running on high in real time, the visual image comes overlaid in his mind as a transparency and he relives in that moment the scene in the movie Dune where the bound up but still beautiful and composed concubine Jessica uses her Bene Gesserit voice to say to her son Paul through her gag, "calm yourself."

But it was too late, the writer's unsteady hand had already pressed publish.

It is imperative that we move away from the old standard of involuntary exploitation. Whether it is processed through redistributive or retributive change is immaterial. Both are principal contributors to progressive corruption of individuals and society.

We need to focus on economic development and set a priority to provide assistance to individuals who momentarily falter, first through charitable works and donations, and second through contributory entitlements. This is also true for individuals who are wholly incapacitated, mentally and physically. If we hope to mitigate occurrence of corruption, then it is necessary that everyone have a stake, albeit unequal.

We need to acknowledge that not everyone will enjoy a beachfront property in Hawaii, and with that recognition we need to end class warfare and other forms which serve to denigrate individual dignity.

We need to recognize that the primary concern of civilized society is to respect individual dignity. That government (i.e. authority) is chartered to promote its preservation and is not an end unto itself. It is a monopoly with a granted authority and as such must have its purview strictly limited.

Whereas I have respect for the classical Progressives, the generational progressives are entirely without merit. They do not respect individual dignity. They do not value developing human life from conception to grave. They live in a selective reality, which is often incompatible with both. They are motivated by dreams of instant gratification, which do not lend to sustainable development of either individuals, society, or humanity.

So Ann, this is the campaign the guy your voted for in 2008 is running. And yes, I know, this post was prompted by some guy from Rolling Stone and the next one might be from some guy at Nation or MSNBC or the black caucus. But they're all part of the team and you know, deep inside, that the guy at the top not only has no problem with what they're doing, but that's his game plan. Some of us knew what he was back then; how could so many others be so fooled?

We have to again remind our lefty friends that most people wanting free stuff are white. Romney knows this. Conservatives know this. Only liberals believe that "free stuff" is secret code for racists. By far most recipients of govt handouts are white. Pass it on.

I have personal experience with the government standing in the way of my small business. A small business that trickles up, down and horizontal to all sorts of other individual industries involved. (oh no - one shouldn't say "trickle down" that's evil. Trickle up poverty is the new hope and change bullshit)My small business had to be shut off because of too many bogus regulations, taxes. There was no way to turn a profit. I think with democrats, that’s the point. Democrats want to own you. Democrats desire control and massive regulations. Regulations that don't even make any sense. Red tape as far as the eye can see. Democrats want to cripple us, and they are succeeding.

No matter, King Obama will slather us with the tyranny of clichés and sickening hissed s tired rhetoric all while he doles out your tax dollars to the democrat client class, adding to our debt. Pay up suckers.

"If you are a citizen of this nation and you want the right to complain about it and are concerned about it remaining the beacon of liberty and freedom, then get off your ass and support Mitt Romney. The choice is the clearest in my 40 years of voting in Presidential elections. The current occupant is the hands down worst, most incompetent executive and I can match any concern and beat any other list. At least Carter's damage was limited. The Obama/Holder disregard for the Constitutional Separation of Powers must come to an end."

Please. You're forgetting the eight disastrous of the Cheney Administration, (popularly known by the name of Cheney's stooge, G. W. Bush.)

I have no like for Obama, and consider him as much as war criminal as Bush and Cheney, et al. I'm not voting for either major party candidate. But to say there is a "clear choice," in fact, the "clearest choice" in 40 years, is a bit much. Romney is a completely plastic politician in the Bob Forehead mold, (Google it), and Obama is...well, the black equivalent. They both serve the interests of the elites, while pandering to their respective hoped-for voting bases: aggrieved working people (of different social and ethnic groups, most likely), all of whom on either side of the political divide will be poorly served by whoever of these two frauds wins the election.

The only people who will win, no matter what, are the elites who are stealing the rest of us blind.

"But I hope people understand this, your friends who like Obamacare, you remind them of this, if they want more stuff from government tell them to go vote for the other guy-more free stuff. But don’t forget nothing is really free."

So in Master Cylinder's head, "your friends who like Obamacare" == "black people". Why is that?

Chase: If you are a citizen of this nation and you want the right to complain about it...then get off your ass and support Mitt Romney.

People vote for who they vote for, or for no one at all, for their own reasons. No one has to do what you say or needs your permission in order to have a right to complain.

The current occupant is the hands down worst, most incompetent executive

Oh really? How many trillions of dollars and how many thousands of lives did the previous knucklehead cost us when he led America into a Iraq invasion based on both bad intelligence and outright lies? What was the state of the economy when that clown's second term was up? And he didn't even capture or kill bin Laden!

And why should I want to repeal Obamacare? With escalating premiums I've been subsidizing people who can afford insurance yet were choosing to freeload off others.

My escalating premiums were also a consequence of the douchebags overcharging me. Yesterday I got a nice little check in the mail along with a letter from my insurer saying they were required to send it to me by the Affordable Care Act. No, it wasn't free money -- it was a rebate because they were using more than 20% of my premiums on administrative costs. Let the Tea Baggers scream and moan about that if they like.

What was that line?.. that the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he didn't exist?

Obama wants to pull a bigger one.

Here we are, relatively fresh from fighting and winning a cold war... a sustained state of political and military tension... (often dated 1947–1991) Wikipedia.. A cold war that was fought over an ideology... and the victorious ideology, Romney and Bain excelled at... Its like a Grant running for president on account of his achievements... sort of... if you are willing to look at business as the substitute holding the union together.

So... You would think Obama would not want to go anywhere near that.

No... Obama has a trump card that he is willing to deal any time, on any count... Dream Team Shapiro called it from the bottom of the deck.

OK,OK! Let us stipulate that GWB was the very worst president ever. Further, no other president,ever,will be as bad. Now, BHO is not even close to the evil horrible worst president ever, GWG, but he is undeniably the second worst. Let's get him out of there.

My escalating premiums were also a consequence of the douchebags overcharging me

No, they were not.

Yesterday I got a nice little check in the mail along with a letter from my insurer saying they were required to send it to me by the Affordable Care Act. No, it wasn't free money -- it was a rebate because they were using more than 20% of my premiums on administrative costs.

And when your premiums go up even more to cover this "rebate" you'll be like so happy and stuff!

jr565 said...What's disgusting about courting black support? Bush got dinged because he wasn't that friendly to the NAACP.

Bush first went before the NAACP as a candidate in 2000. He was friendly and gracious and gave a very nice speech. He, in turn, was treated abominably. If the "friendship" was strained from that point on, the NAACP had no one to blame but itself.

"Oh really? How many trillions of dollars and how many thousands of lives did the previous knucklehead cost us when he led America into a Iraq invasion based on both bad intelligence and outright lies? "

Well, the twin towers are no longer there. Was that an optical illusion ? Clinton certainly taught OBL how tough we were, shooting those cruise missiles into empty camps. That really scared him.

"What was the state of the economy when that clown's second term was up?"

It was a little better than it is four years later.

" And he didn't even capture or kill bin Laden! "

That's certainly true. We needed a real tough guy to go in there and bag him himself. Obama tells us how tough he is. And you believe him.

Jay said...And when your premiums go up even more to cover this "rebate" you'll be like so happy and stuff!

This reminds me of one of my favorite California stories:

Some years ago, the CA legislature determined that Pacific Gas & Electric had overcharged its customers and ordered the utility to return that money in the form of 10 percent rebates on monthly bills over a period of years. PG&E claimed it did not have the cash for such a rebate program and would need to sell bonds to fund it. It requested permission to pass the bond financing costs along to the customers which the legislature granted.

So on my monthly bills, I would get a 10 percent reduction of my utility charges, but I also would be dunned for my share of PG&E's financing costs. Typically, the two would cancel each other out but in some months, my "rebate" would actually cost me money. The rebate program ended years ago, but I continued paying "my share" of the finance costs for many years after that. In fact, I'm still paying them.

Stories like this are why some of the scariest words in the English language are "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

"'Oh really? How many trillions of dollars and how many thousands of lives did the previous knucklehead cost us when he led America into a Iraq invasion based on both bad intelligence and outright lies?'

"Well, the twin towers are no longer there. Was that an optical illusion?"

What did the latter have to do with the former?

Nothing.

Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center.(Neither did Afghanistan, for that matter.)

"'Oh really? How many trillions of dollars and how many thousands of lives did the previous knucklehead cost us when he led America into a Iraq invasion based on both bad intelligence and outright lies?'

"Well, the twin towers are no longer there. Was that an optical illusion?"

What did the latter have to do with the former?

Nothing.

Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center.(Neither did Afghanistan, for that matter.)

How very true.WW2 was the "good" war. Right?Perhaps you can tell why, after the United States was attacked by Japan, the first country we(the United States) invaded was Algeria. After all Algeria posed no threat to the United States.

"The black community knows all too well that awful schools screw over their children, but those same awful schools are a huge local source of patronage & family connection jobs for folks that the community knows would be unemployable otherwise (i.e. workfare)."

In every city black families are sending their children to live with relatives to get them out of the really bad schools; they sign up for voucher programs; they put their kids in parochial schools; they leave the public schools every time they can. And Mitt Romney promised to make their school dollars portable so they could all get out. He didn't get booed for that or for saying that the public sector unions are standing in the way of this reform.

"WW2 was the "good" war. Right?Perhaps you can tell why, after the United States was attacked by Japan, the first country we(the United States) invaded was Algeria. After all Algeria posed no threat to the United States."

Well, I've said that WWII is "arguably" the only war we've fought in more than a century that might have been in self-defense of ourselves and our allies. If you or others can present convincing arguments that WWII was unnecessary and should not have been joined by us, I'm open to hear those arguments.

That would simply strengthen my point: we do not fight wars of defense, our rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding. We fight wars of choice and aggression, to serve our own geopolitical purposes. In short, in our wars, we are the aggressors.

We joined with the British at their request to invade North Africa to hopefully clear it of Axis forces there and help the Allies gain greater control over the Mediterranean Sea and set the stage later for further campaigns in Europe. (Germany declared war on us days after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.)

I suppose he's trying to sound folksy, but every Romney quote I've heard needs half the verbiage and twice the clarity. There's an excellent message here that's all muddled up. Weren't we talking about this recently?

What did the latter have to do with the former? Nothing. Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center.(Neither did Afghanistan, for that matter.)

Wrong. Absolutely, flat-out, uncategorically wrong.

Afghanistan was the easy part. The Taliban, who are based on Afghanistan, were harboring OBL. As for Iraq - it was the optimal place to put a US-friendly government in place. In the middle of an area surrounded by Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria. Whether GWB sold it as such is a matter for another argument.

And we can discuss whether the above was a good idea or bad; both sides have valid points here. But the idea that they had nothing to do with 911 is a complete fabrication, to put it nicely.

When did Bush completely ignore the rule of law and use taxpayer money to fuck over taxpayers and overturn decades of bankruptcy laws to buy an auto company (GM), then hand it over to a politically partisan group (UAW)?

When did Bush act completely without Mexican authorities to sell Mexican drug cartels large amounts of weapons, then not even try to track them (Fast and Furious)? When did Bush enact this type of policy that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of mexicans and at least one US official?

If you think Bush and Cheney are two war criminals, you have to think the same thing of Obama and Biden. After all, they've continued and extended every single piece of controversial war policies in the war on terror.

Is [sic] this is true, what explains the steady rise in insurance premiums that has been going on since well before Obamacare was passed

Teh government didn't just now start to get involved in mucking around with medical care. This is one of the reasons why the backers of Obamacare can rightly be called fools or liars. It has been known for decades that government involvment caused these rising prices, yet Obamacare was put forward as a way to make these prices fall.

Taiibi's articles are nothing more than "exposes" designed to whitewash the Democratic Party leadership's involvement in the economic collapse of the last ten years. In his laughable article of a year ago in RS, asking plaintively why no one had been prosecuted, he failed in that article to walk back the cat on Eric Holder's appointment as Attorney General by Barack Obama.

A simple cui bono of who benefited from Obama's lack of prosecutions in the Southern District of New York might have helped Taiibi. However, I suspect he knew all along and simply didn't want to go there.

Matt sucks Obama's johnson, basically, and pretends to be a truthteller. It's all a lie.

Robert Cook has pretty clearly stated, pretty consistently, that he considers both President Obama and President George W. Bush to be--pretty much--analogues. This is not new--and, IMO--not in any way, shape for form, including how he extends that to their aides.

This is the problem with the oft tossed-about phrase with regard to pretty much anything:

"on the merits."

Because of course almost no one means that (and by "almost no one" I mean pretty much no one, and in the case of those who yell loudest *no one*.) That phrase is no more than a catch-phrase at best and a code-word, at mid-range.

Robert Cook has pretty clearly stated, pretty consistently, that he considers both President Obama and President George W. Bush to be--pretty much--analogues.

Except that W and Obama are not analogues. While W was not a very good president (though, I don't think many presidents were "good", some are definitely better than others), Obama is a true national disaster and much, much worse than W. Obama is on par with FDR in making a bad situation into a catastrophe. These two rank as the two worst presidents of the last 100 years (with Wilson a close third).

Ken: You are ducking the notion that Robert Cook sees analogical notions with regard to both. He does. And he states some things about that and he poses some arguments as against the ideas of both and also with regard to both as leaders. Why not engage, then, Ken, "on the merits," so to speak, and all of that? Take it away from the personal and the tribal, both in terms of target and expression, and address all of that, if you will.

I don't agree with Robert Cook on a whole host of things (to put it, um, quite mildly). OTOH, to put it bluntly, he's been more consistent and honest and far less "all ad hominem" than most here at Althouse over the years (and, yeah, of course I'd include myself in the convicting).

Here's one just one example of how I might start (however ineptly and, yes, betraying biases):

Robert Cook, I think it's pretty clear from what you've said over all of these years that you consider the United States of America to be an undemocratic, an oppressive and perhaps even a fascistic state. The honest truth is that I find it hard to wrap my mind around that judgment of yours, given all of the examples from 'round the world during the 20th century [and in so many cases unto today] onto which that shoe more easily fits--and, I would say, more manifestly. When you criticize the United States in terms 1) of all of that [see undemocratic, oppressive, even fascistic] and 2) which seems to be an effort to set the United States apart, and in pejorative terms, as somehow worse and more worthy of criticism than other nations with unquestionably worse records in a host of ways (and, in many cases, without any of offsetting/balancing factors that the U.S. has offered). Is that your intent? If it is, come out and state that more clearly. If not, perhaps you should reconsider your approach--and you certainly *ought* present a clearer statement of your judgement and, thus, of your beliefs and expectations.

Here's one just one example of how I might start (however ineptly and, yes, betraying biases):

Robert Cook, I think it's pretty clear from what you've said over all of these years that you consider the United States of America to be an undemocratic, an oppressive and perhaps even a fascistic state. The honest truth is that I find it hard to wrap my mind around that judgment of yours, given all of the examples from 'round the world during the 20th century [and in so many cases unto today] onto which that shoe more easily fits--and, I would say, more manifestly fits.

When you criticize the United States in terms 1) of all of *that* [see undemocratic, oppressive, even fascistic] and 2) which seem to be an effort to set the United States apart, and in pejorative terms, as somehow worse and more worthy of criticism than other nations with unquestionably worse records in a host of ways (and, in many cases, without any of the offsetting/balancing factors that the U.S. has offered), is that your intent?

If it is, come out and state that more clearly. If not, perhaps you should reconsider your approach--and you certainly *ought* present a clearer statement of your judgement and, thus, of your beliefs and expectations.

My criticisms of Unites States behavior domestically and in the world have nothing to do with comparing us to other countries, but have entirely to do with the fact that I am a citizen of this country. Were I a citizen of another country my duty would be to criticize that country's behavior domestically and in the world. A citizen should not cheer for his country as if it were a sports team and he a fan. As citizens in a (purported) representative republic, our nation's behavior is our responsibility.

I might criticize how Syria or Saudi Arabia or Pakistan or Iran or many other countries are politically and socially arranged, and how their governments treat their people or how they act in the world. But...what's the point? I'm neither a citizen of those countries nor can I claim a say in their functioning. A citizen of any country can only meaningfully criticize his own country, and this should be every citizen's main focus: how does my country behave in the world, and does that behavior comport with or violate our purported national beliefs, laws, and standards of behavior? Given that America is presently the most powerful country in the world and interferes in the affairs of other countries around the globe, and given that we trumpet ourselves as the paragon of virtue in the world while behaving in many cases very unvirtuously, our duty as citizens to appraise and critique our country's behavior is exigent.

Why criticize the household down the block when ignoring the aspects of one's own household that demand critical attention?

In short: my country is more my (and our) business than any other country is.

Rusty. Vichy France forces were in Algeria and the Brits had planned to commence their Afrcan campaign there. Rommell was to the East. The U S attacked with the Brits. The US had just joined the war. 5. you, no doubt, thought it was ablood for oil move? Or a racist attack on Africa. Your point?

To follow up on earlier comments: the Torch landings in North Africa were an act of war against France, a country the US was not at war with. There were no German combat forces in Algeria, and the country was not German-occupied like France itself was in 1944. While I think it was a necessary action, as was the Germany-first policy (agreed upon before Pearl Harbor), taking a rosy view of WWII compared to other wars we've fought is absurd. But it's because we can look back at World War 2 as a necessary and just war, that pointing out that other wars we've fought have been substantially similar in execution (including the most recent foray into Iraq) that a comparison is meaningful. While I respect the internal consistency of Cook's logic, and that he is arguing in good faith, I don't accept his premises.

As an example, Cook considers "WWII [is] 'arguably' the only war we've fought in more than a century that might have been in self-defense of ourselves and our allies." The Korean war wasn't a defense of a US ally? The first Persian Gulf war wasn't a defense of a US ally? Both wars were even supported by the UN. (I personally don't consider UN support or opposition to be a valid measure of the justness of a military action, given that the UN votes on the politics of its members rather than the facts, but I recall Cook citing lack of UN support as a reason to oppose the most recent conflicts.)

To get back to the original post, increasing consumption without increasing production (production of value, including services) is meaningless. While it is possible for the government to produce value (roads, law enforcement, defense, etc.) most government spending generates little or no value, and I am hard pressed to think of any place the government spends money that generates more value than would be the case for the money being spent privately.

Having the government spend money to create jobs when those jobs create no value is worse than useless economically; it really amounts to stealth inflation. Those first three sentences of Romney's quote are unarguably correct.

Michael said... Rusty. Vichy France forces were in Algeria and the Brits had planned to commence their Afrcan campaign there. Rommell was to the East. The U S attacked with the Brits. The US had just joined the war. 5. you, no doubt, thought it was ablood for oil move? Or a racist attack on Africa. Your point?

This was all for Robert's benefit, but since you ask. From a military standpoint you want to place you're forces as close to your enemy as possible and still maintain lines of supply and has the added advantage of collateral benefits.

No we weren't attacked by Iran or Afghanistan. Neither were we attacked by Algeria. But our placement in all those places gave our forces a strategic advantage over our enemies. It forced them to defend territory They didn't particularly want and thereby spread and thinned their forces. Now. What country lies between Iraq and Afghanistan?From a military standpoint it makes perfect sense. Politically? History will sort it out.Bobs lack of knowledge of history plus his blind adherence to ideology blind him to reason.

By Robert's logic, our invasion of French Algeria and German-occupied France were both war crimes. Defining war crimes so makes a mockery of what a war crime is. No nation uses Robert's definition of war crimes except to equivocate real, traditional war crimes that they've committed.

What Iran, and other state sponsors of terrorism, do, can be compared to a what if: what if the Imperial Japanese navy had painted over their insignia before bombing Pearl Harbor, and then the Japanese government denied any involvement with what happened to the US Pacific Fleet? Would the US be committing a war crime by responding back and waging war against Japan? Of course not.

Both the governments of Afghanistan and Iraq were known to be engaging in warfare-by-proxy against the US. Treating that as any different than warfare waged by the uniformed forces of the country is an open license for more war, and war predominantly deliberately carried out by attacks against non-combatants. If you want more war, and more dead and maimed non-combatants, by all means encourage more terrorists.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who was particularly put off by some (a lot) of the reporting during the 2008 election cycle. One of the most salient memories I have of the level of dishonesty, bias, partisanship, and general nastiness exhibited by people in the media during that time is reading the series of articles written by Matt Taibbi for Rolling Stone. His coverage of the primaries was so shockingly skewed that I lost all respect for not just the author but also the magazine that published him. The one positive thing I can say about MT is that his writing acted as a catalyst for me. Before MT, I had at least a general respect and trust in the media. Some people are more left, some people are more right, but overall it balances out. After MT, my eyes were opened. My naivete was laid bare. And now I know: MT (and many, many like him) is a liar. With an agenda. And it's not pretty.

For Afghanistan, the Taliban harbored and supported a group that, had it been carried out by a state, would have unquestionably been an act of war. Their actions indicated that they continued that support after the act.

For Iraq, I don't even need the 'by proxy' qualification, as they shot at US forces in violation of the 1991 cease-fire, which is a deliberate and open act of war. Beyond that, their support for terrorist groups is well documented.

While Iran and North Korea are engaging in war-by-proxy against the US as well, the US is not obligated to treat such attacks as acts of war, and is not required to respond as such. However, our reluctance to do so does not mean we are not allowed to do so. That reluctance has not brought about 'peace', only more dead innocents.

Is anyone really surprised that a hack like Taibbi would go for the cheap shot against Romney? Rolling Stone has been in the tank for Obama since the '08 primaries. Expect it to get worse -- a lot worse.